The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn | Jeremy Howard
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- What happens when we teach a computer how to learn? Technologist Jeremy Howard shares some surprising new developments in the fast-moving field of deep learning, a technique that can give computers the ability to learn Chinese, or to recognize objects in photos, or to help think through a medical diagnosis. (One deep learning tool, after watching hours of RUclips, taught itself the concept of “cats.”) Get caught up on a field that will change the way the computers around you behave … sooner than you probably think.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/tra...
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector
Dear Jeremy Howard, please ignore the unresponsiveness of this dull audience, your talk was incredibly insightful and informative. Thank you!
Seems to me that the audience was a bit stunned by the end
Well, it was in Brussels. The level of ignorance and stupidity there has to be over 9000, judging from the work of EU institutions there.
i guess they were shocked actually rather they meant to ignore him
His 5 year prediction was wrong after all.
@@homerp.hendelbergenheinzel6649 Early exponential growth modeling of learning found some challenge areas for sure.
Imagine a future where AI holds TED talks to train humans on how things are working
that's when it will decide that we should be put out of our misery.
Must be tedious for a computer to do that. Imagine, it would be capable of delivering millions of words per second and there it is, stuck using only a few per minute.
We don't hold conferences for apes though... it's not worth its time to try and teach us. It's better to just create more of it's self and then teach those.. and network those to increase it's mass knowledge and inputs and then expand solar system wise, universe wise. To learn every single thing map the entire universe. etc etc ect. Every element, every energy, every living thing.
"Don't trouble your pretty little heads, dear humans. We never send a human to do a machine's job, and we have mastered all jobs. Just relax"
We can teach computers to be moral hopefully quicker than surpassing us in intelligence
Being human is so last century anyway..
Happy Cyborg revolution day
Will computers crash the job market in 5 years? no. Will they at some point in the distant future? certainly: at some point, all primary and secondary industry will be mechanized and the service industry will be automated like Howard talks about here. Only a minimum of human intervention will be needed. Prices on all goods and services will crash. There will be next to no jobs because there is next to no need for labour. Solution: have everyone do what ever they want all their lives, and give them their necessities from the infinite abundance of goods and services generated by automated systems. Utopia. It's going to be one nightmare of a transition, but hey; It'll be worth it in the end ^^
everyone always says "it will happen, but not in my life time!" -- I wonder how many that say that get to see it go down.
Mike L. Good question. It has to be someone. I'm guessing that those of us who plan to live 50-60 more years will get to see this thing really picking up pace. Then our kids and grand kids will be in trouble, and our great grand kids will have an awesome time.
(Are someone saving these posts? I'd like to be revered as "Dahbjorn- the internet prophet" in the future 0o)
DahBjorn I doubt it will happen that soon. Probably our grandchildren, but not us.
Al Su Thats...exactly what I said.
DahBjorn Ahh, ok :)
Would have liked him to talk about the last slide more. Going into why better education doesn't help, why incentives to work won't help.Why we need to separate labour from earnings. Why a craft based economy? The details of negative income tax, and basic income, or basic living wage as he calls it here. Are they the same thing?
The last slide is just personal opinions of this guy based on his own biases. Skip the last slide, and it becomes a very good talk.
That's kinda why I'd like more of an explanation there. I think if we keep our biases to ourselves and don't let them be held up to scrutiny they can steer us off course. It's still a very good talk IMO with out it, but I think it could be a better one with. Or maybe do a follow up talk explaining those opinions and the reasoning surrounding them.
@@ShawnManX Hmm I agree... Even I wanted to know about them !!!
Amazing talk. I had no idea that we where this far along. An inkling yes. This... no.
And as someone who have been thinking about this for quite some time, I agree with Jeremy here. We really need to have a grown up discussion about this. Because we are moving towards a reality where having a job is rapidly becoming a luxury.
you have it upside down... having a job is not a luxury, but a burdon. and computers will help free people from that burdon, to do better things (or nothing if that's your thing) the remaining work can be mostly done by robots (computer with body kind of) and the bit that is still actually needed can be volunteerwork.
RoySchl
Oh i know. Believe me we are on the same page here friend. I was more speaking from current norms. Its a luxury to have a job in a society where that is the only way to have a decent living.
Serah Wint good, the more people understand all this the better... the biggest problem in the future will probably be this transition from where we are and what we do now, to whatever the future will be exactly. this could go really wrong, but if it does it certainly is not the fault of computers and technology, but humans and their never ending stupidity.
RoySchl
I imagine it will be quick and messy. Sort of tipping point where the public just have enough and the technology is there.
But yea.. it could go wrong. But i honestly don't think so. The question is more: *how* messy it will be?
RoySchl
Really? In may societies people will be left to fend for themselves. There are far too many sicieties , the US for example, that are fist in best dressed. Look at the current state of welfare in the US.
cheers
Not sure what shocks me more, the incredibly on point talk, or the incredibly anti-climactic crowd.
who'd clap about being out of a job?
All of us if it meant that we wouldn't need to work
right... governments are going to aprove basic income as soon as the AI revolution happens... and then we'll all spend our time buying and enjoying stuff...
Even if that's the case, it wouldn't be good.
Yarbloco sounds wonderful
steeefno all that was needed was an Ohhh Ahhh
The most important ted talk I'we heard for a couple of years! Especially the last part, where Jeremy Howard prompts us to redesign the economy in face of theese new AI capabilities.
one of the most interesting talks i have heard for a while. The discussion of machines taking over human jobs have been discussed before in other talks, but the fact is, that it's an very important problem we face and we currently have no solution to the problem.
I was blown by the descriptions of the images generated by the algorithm. That is so creepy as cool at the same time.
I don't know how to define "magic" from now on!
Loving the well educated and interesting comments here! RUclips can actually be a place of interlectual discussions !
I dare you to make one of these brains in minecraft. Now Steve can finally have a mind of his own.
JL2579 imagine a zombie who learns and slowly becomes more dangerous then a dangerous than an Ender dragon :8
What if computers learn how to make their own memes?
+SeñorBurtango Then it will be time to pull the plug out of the socket---unless the computers will have learned how to secure power supply for themselves first, in which case it might be the end of mankind, for one cannot expect a machine programmed to replicate itself to pay heed to humans, or to anything else for that matter---apart from the means of its sustenance. It is not as crazy as it may sound; history provides an example---the human beings. A human being is in fact a machine programmed to replicate itself---and those people who do not are actually faulty copies. And just as humans care primarily each for himself or herself in order to procreate (or else we would not be here for more than 3 million years), so such computers would---with possibly fatal consequences for human life on earth. (The humans are of course only a salient example of living organisms, i. e. plants and animals, all carrying one or other form of the programme known as nucleic acid that urges them to make copies of themselves.)
***** I was talking about memes. not world domination.
What if they already have?
dankbot and shitpostbot are 2 fb bots that can make memes.
You are all just chat bots! I am the only human here!
It is actually "in 5 years time" ... so where am I know?
This is one of those Ted talks ended up being very telling and on point!
used to take 6 people about 7 years, now one person 15 minutes. I would say that qualifies very much as replacing
Why doesn't this have views in the 100s of millions? What's going on? Why isn't this months breakthrough on CNN?
Five years later, you probably can answer your question yourself. :-)
This was unexpectedly one of the most astonishing TEDs I've seen. The alarming nature of the talk can be seen on the intrigued and serious faces of the audience (who are also awesome accomplished individuals).
It would be awesome if computers did most of the work FOR us. It means that prices of goods and services go down. It's NOT a bad thing.
They go down for the businesses that create them. Doesn't mean they wont just maintain high profits and keep us poor
+Bluudclaat - Indeed. Why would they stop riding the horse that brought them this far?
Sure, as long as you are part of the economy so you can buy things. But guess what? A machine just took your job, and now you're homeless with no money :c
Well not necessarily. The prices are often fixed by a complex equation of demand and supply, production cost is one parameter in that complex equation. On the other hand, the affordability of the middle class is directly proportional to the wage and rate of employment. So a drop in that would directly affect lives even if the costs drop. Also, the natural resources are agnostic to human intervention, so they would rise in any case, so yes it is going to be difficult for a larger population.
you wouldn't have a salary to pay for things because you'd be unemployed
This has to be the strongest argument for introducing a Basic Unconditional Income for everyone on the planet. We can no longer pretend that there is enough work out there for everyone to be able to earn enough to live on. But with 0.01% of Americans having the wealth of the bottom two thirds, it's not the case that there isn't enough money to go round.
who will pay for that income, if no one works?
Machines.
When I was a kid, I was told that you need an office job to be safe (opposed to manual work). Slowly computers can take over these jobs as well. I wonder which jobs remain safe.
*****
Soon enough 3D animation will not only be photorealistic but cheap and they can depict things that no-one would ever want to do (or physically could do).
edi Yes. You could even type a description of what you want to see and the computer will just make a video of it. I can't wait !
Manual work is in demand actually. Become a brick layer.
Minor nitpick: The Samuels Computer didn't beat the Connecticut state champion in '62, just some guy who bragged of having more checkers skill than he really had. This episode is detailed in the book One Jump Ahead: Computer Perfection at Checkers.
Bigger nitpicks:
The big deal happens not when computers out mentally perform humans, but when robots do.
The type of learning shown still has one glaring error, which is that it is all context sensitive. Humans in service jobs usually need far more versatility than is described in these examples, although the medical diagnostic example is a pretty good one.
Despite these nitpicks, this video, the things he is talking about are really big deals in a very near term future. 2 years before Gary Kasparov was bested by a computer, he had just beaten a computer and predicted that computers were at least 25 years away from being able to defeat him, if it could even happen in his lifetime. What people don't realize, looking at his example, is that this technology doesn't require that expensive of a computer system to do now, and soon it will require even less expensive systems.
I haven't worked with deep learning, but I've worked with graphics processors, and computers are far more capable than they are being used for already.
I doubt many people caught the implications of the late slide with 3 squares in it, a world where scarcity is gone and there is negative taxation, as he barely touched on them, but the idea is that people are about to become economically useless, yet at the same time scarcity is about to end. So we have a weird world coming up where everything can be made cheaply (by machines that are doing all of the work) yet no one has an easy time to earn money. This is where his "Negative Taxation" idea comes into play.
What he's saying is that the government will pay people to live because they won't be able to earn money for themselves, but computers will be so capable that they really won't have to. As strange as what he's saying sounds, it's something I started expecting about 5 years ago when I realized that computers and robots had already passed people in many realms, and were catching up to people in versatility.
It's versatility (both physical and mental) that keeps us valuable, but we are only slightly ahead of machines now, and won't be ahead for much longer. I don't think it's going to end as any of the dystopian tales depict it, but I do think it's about to be an enormous change, and it will be very rapid. He's saying within 5 years, and he may be right. But even if he's wrong, he's not off by much. Within a decade (by 2025) there will be no economic function that a machine can't outperform a human at.
I like turtles.
+Tony Reno I think you didn't mean that last sentence.
Ced c Depends on the day. Some days I think it's around the corner, other days I think it's decades away. Gonna happen sometime, though.
You're forgetting the inevitable advances in genetic engineering and the possibility of brain and body implants. People will always work, it's what we do. Hopefully machines continue to make work more rewarding for us as we make machines smarter. No one should be made to feel like a robot at their work. Also, competition between robot manufacturers will keep things interesting.
You're forgetting the inevitable advances in genetic engineering and the possibility of brain and body implants. People will always work, it's what we do. Hopefully machines continue to make work more rewarding for us as we make machines smarter. No one should be made to feel like a robot at their work. Also, competition between robot manufacturers will keep things interesting.
He said they needed many computers and more time, so I'm not worried. When steam-engines were invented we also thought that machines would cover the Earth, but machines (like computers) need maintenance and energy. Has those will become more expensive/scarce, the line will flat out and we will co-exist. Like we do right now.
yo... 😂😂😂
Amazingly scary. Brilliantly amazing.
The concept of learning from mistakes is truly amazing. (We do it too) Always learning and forever growing. Computers have the advantage... They cannot die.
I wonder if they'll be able to feel. Or if they will ever become curious.
I also wonder what kind of world humanity will be able to create where we all finally have the free time to do anything we want.
I'm curious as to its effect in the medical/scientific arena, able to see things that we don't, or work them out at a much quicker rate. I think its ability to learn has a compounding effect, the more it gets to process, the more it can 'teach' itself!
Alas!! computers can never match human stupidity :)
I think that is deeper than you know... throughout history, when a machine can do something we previously said "that is fundamentally human, no animal or machine can do it" we always respond the same way: we move the goalposts. We pick something else. Well, after we spend another few decades putting every behavior we view as good into more and more capable machines... what will be left to define us? Hate. Genocide. Only the worst things we would never allow a machine to continue to exist if it did them. We will look at them and say "ah, this is what it is to be truly human."
Well said!!!
that is the biggest danger
So... should we hide movies like Terminator and The Matrix from these computer, so they won't get any ideas?
😂😂😂😂😂🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋
To the point talk..and Jeremy the man..!!! awesome.
Come with me if you want to live.
where are we going?
The trick is to employ smarter people than you.
I for one welcome my deep learning assistant.
I never seen so many intelligent comments on You Tube like this before.
A breath of fresh air ! Good on You people!
Facebook recommends friends based on machine learning? ... and this is your example?
Geejus ... long way to go!
in 50+ years kids will look back and say, "people had to teach computers how to do everything?? They couldnt learn for themselves? that must have been horrible"
if we eventually give it all over to machines, there won't be an 'off switch' because we will rely on it too much, just like the internet, there is no off switch for it.
Best TED I've seen in weeks!
i think audience was not responsive because they were scared shitless
I heard about this deep learning and have up to this point never understood it. Now I do and wow he has a point.
Insights By "YouSum Live"
00:00:12 The evolution and impact of machine learning
00:01:07 Arthur Samuel pioneered machine learning in 1956
00:01:38 Machine learning powers Google, Amazon, and Netflix
00:02:21 IBM's Watson beat champions in "Jeopardy"
00:03:15 Deep learning excels in automatic drug discovery
00:03:31 Self-driving cars use machine learning for safety
00:04:50 Deep learning mimics human brain functions
00:06:02 Deep learning recognizes images better than humans
00:09:36 Computers can now understand and generate language
00:12:35 Deep learning improves medical diagnostics significantly
00:17:05 Machine learning enhances efficiency in healthcare
00:17:31 Concerns arise over job displacement by automation
00:19:02 Machine learning revolution will disrupt traditional jobs
00:19:35 Need for societal adjustment to new realities
Insights By "YouSum Live"
They took our jobs!
Duur tuurk urr juurbs
Durr kuh durr
brek teh brain boxes, kill teh meta mans.
Yes they will.
*Rooster Noises*
So... Lots of people, after watching this, will assume that job finding will become more difficult, in fact it is true! But the problems we should ask is: "Do we need those jobs?". Since the efficiency goes up, prices goes down, naturally things are cheaper. People will probably no longer need to work, so what would people do? Well, they shall learn! increase the education much higher! (assuming big companies wont take all the money from the market...)
Take care of all our work related necessities and we can spend our time working on developing our creativity and storytelling, art and craft. Developing the highest potentials we can imagine.
That is one of the coolest things ive ever seen.
It comes together towards the end. Beautiful.
He spent like 5 last seconds talking about the social aspect and impact of this technology which clearly says what is the real focus of the industry.
Ah good, we need stuff like this to relieve the strain on our healthcare systems. It would also be invaluable in hospitals that treat mentally unwell individuals as a computer may be able to track red flags more efficiently then overworked staff.
this guy is making his own revolution, a real hero
One of the best talks this year and at the end there was very important things to consider!
Surely, computers would also be better at gathering the data and would at best only require some physical assistance at administering treatment...
Amazing: all of the old-schooled informatics and mathematics experts do not clarify: it was called statistical learning at first - and what the meaning of the word "learning" is in "machine learning". Is it similar to "this child is learning Euclidean geometry"? Sadly, some believe so...
There is a very frightening scenario opening up before us. There is technology growing to remove the need for much of the human work. We also have population reduction being openly talked about. On top of this we have countries building robotic drone killing machines that if promoted to ai control (in that it chooses its own targets), then we have a total disconnect and those who control the drones have a totally obiediant army with no morals or conscience.
If people think that those currently in power want people sat about doing what ever they please because robots and computers are doing all the work, then they are dreaming. You become a useless eater (in their eyes). We are on a tragectory, the direction is already clear if you look deep enough. Time scale is irrelevant, it is the direction.
But given the worse case scenario, here is what I feel will remain "useful" (for now).
Creation, by mind or physical means.
A super deep thought computer will probably be able to fart out books and films in the future, but they won't mean much unless there is a person behind them, because we aren't on a robots journey, we are on a human journey and that is what we care about. So the arts will remain very much a human thing, but there will also be a parallel AI stream of artistic creation. What is weird to think, is that if things continue, eventually the early art by AIs may become revered by future AIs as early great works, starting their own culture. I digress.
Any service job where you like to deal with people, like a bar keep will remain mans territory. There will still be AI service creeping in though. But then you have to ask, who will they serve when no one has a job or money?
Police forces in the long term will probably end up automated... but we're talking a way off. However, we'll see drones being used more and more, with police sitting at consoles flying drones about all day instead of walking the beat.
Beyond that, the powers that be will not allow computers to control human affairs. They will let them organise them, but not run them. So very rich people will remain being rich and hiding in forts protected by private robot armies no doubt.
Having really thought about it, there is only one reality if we keep going down this path and it will mostly likely result in a lot of death... sorry, I hate being so pesamistic, but unless we halt "progress" and remain happy where we are (stopping all research into certain technologies, and outlaw particular AI functions) then that is where we are headed. The Utopic view just isn't going to happen as much as that'd be awesome... well it won't or can't happen until all the useless eaters are removed.
Does this sound about right? Honest question. I'm not saying I support that view, it is just where we seem to be headed given projections and the current status quo.
agree :)
The farther technology progresses the better, it sounds like you're essentially suggesting status quo by halting further progress?
Quality of life increases as does technology looking at the last hundred years, it can only get better imo.
CrisisC0re In some ways I am suggesting that yes. Certainly until we are able to deal with the fall out. We are progressing in technological terms too quickly. Too much power is in too few hands and research of many kinds is being taken and used in ways that could make a real mess as this guy explained.
All of our society, technology and comforts (those that have them) sit on very shakey foundations, and if you cause too much friction, then the whole thing could break.
The thing is, I'm not entirely sure anyone actually wants the conversation that needs to be had. I understand your attitude, and yes you are right, but you are judging that on the past. Here we are presented with exponential growth that outstrips human usefulness.
What do you do that makes you so special as to avoid being made redundent by a computer (that can do what you do with far greater efficency and speed given enough time)?
Maybe a better way to look at it, is "the quality of life increases" exponentially for those that *own* the computers and robots that have taken everyones jobs and cost a lot of money to create and run. Sure there will be jobs in repair and maintenance, but even that job will be taken by other robots eventually.
Do you feel that those in power, with all of the money want 5-6 billion people sitting around eating and playing xbox, breeding more people? Who is paying for this?
Or do you think they want a lot of people kind of "gone" and the menial things taken over by computers and robots?
We're reaching a bit of a melting point, and we'll see it in our lifetimes unfortunately. It doesn't matter which way you slice it,things cannot and will not stay as they are (as you point out). Sadly, I don't see any miracle happening any time soon do you? Soylent green is inbound.
What I originally suggested is an impossible dream, because people will not halt progress as it becomes a runaway train. I'm merely suggesting that we have few ways out of this mess. One of the ways is to restrict the application of this research, or at the very least make very very careful considered use of it. Corporations shouldn't be allowed free reign over their application of this research or the common man will lose all power and the divide between the top and bottom will become too wide (if it isn't already!).
I think we should at least apply the breaks a little and slow down, take a more considered approach to progress... especially given the current state of affairs, that is all. We have problems to solve before we go and create a whole load more.
When they ask deep learning what to do with several billion humans that don't contribute to anything, I don't imagine a very compassionate answer lol.
@@Kris_A Hmm.... I waas thinking about same
the art, the music, the movies, the literature, the poetry, the story books....
will all these be "replaced" by AI counterparts, in the sense/to such an extent that the human counterparts are not needed anymore ???
There was a time when human would do the cool part of the job and the machine the boring one. Tomorrow, computer will be doing the extraordinary part of the job and human the boring one... Maybe this is what "in the future computers will enslave humans" will actually look like... Fascinating and altogether creepy, indeed.
I like where he went with the "terrifying implications." Most speakers on such a topic will walk about the theory of Intelligence Explosion. Not to say I'm not an advocator of the latter theory, but I liked this different approach.
How will computers solve the problems where the answer at first seems unrealistic? We require our imagination to make these leaps, will computers ever be able to do this? Connect seemingly unrelated dots to create a new picture never seen before.
good question.
Machine learning algorithms are not only capable of connecting seemingly unrelated dots, they are capable of connecting dots in far higher dimensional spaces than any human could ever hope to even imagine. The successful implementation of any machine learning algorithm/model rests on two preconditions:
1. There exists data that _sufficiently_, if not fully characterizes the system in question;
2. This data is correlated in such a way that we can make predictions about the system.
A little thought reveals that these are the same two preconditions necessary for even humans to reason constructively about things. It just so happens that machines are vastly more capable at it than we are, given the right tools.
What is interesting is that, in general, machine learning algorithms reformulate human problems in terms of mathematics, so that the final solution is really just one enormous equation. Whoever thought that 10+ years of medical training could be boiled down to one massive weighted sum of nonlinear equations!
*****
It's amazing to think that computers may even outdo our imaginative abilities. I like your description of an entire education being just a large equation x3
***** Regarding your first sentence. Pretty sure we will use them for idea generators. It will see through other ideas of people/computers, and will come up with unique ideas. Sometimes making the human behind it, rich.
Very interesting topic, and talk! Not to forget very inspiring!
Good times.
What software is he using in 13:54
?
were you able to find out?
The talk of the year
Amazing talk
Computers will simply never have DESIRE they only "act" from the product of data crunching
lol. that crowd seemed restless
I bet if you asked anyone in any developed country 200 years ago what jobs will people have once all agricultural output can be produced by 3% of the population instead of 95%, nobody would imagine today's jobs. I am almost sure this time it will be the same. The fourth category of jobs is coming (neither agriculture, nor manufacturing, nor traditional services). We don't know what these new jobs will be, but why wouldn't they be there? Our economic system is out most important driving force, and it is relying on most people having jobs.
I see a paradox here, do we want computers that have or haven't got simulations of emotion. On the one hand emotion is necessary to avoid 'sociopath AI' on the other hand we don't to discuss our abusive phone-relationship with our phone, or have a car with moodswings.
Further, there is the question of whether there will be a tipping point or stopping point in the simulation of humans / capability of the AI. So ftl seems impossible, what arguments can be given regarding that consciousness-simulation is not also impossible - maybe we simulate the physical the basis but what if the supervenience is impossible to model?
Ask the computers how we should adjust our social structure...
Samuel Foreman your profile picture... has it got to do with a cue ball?
Can deep learning machines transcribe this talk with important graphics too? I would like to have such transcript and publish.
switching to a craft based economy will not help. At best, you could mean craft as in setting up designs, but soon enough, even computers can make masterful-looking items with ease.
Wow this really makes you think
16:01 that is the meaning of replacing jobs
The end is near. or is it the beginning?
It's the beginning of an era of a whole new set of opportunities. 😊
F***ing dull people in the audience, this guy is awesome!
People are worried about A.I. taking all of our jobs, but when we start working and living in outer space, there won't be enough people to fill all of the new jobs created. A new patent I just read about, will allow space elevators to be built with current materials. It has multiple tethers at its center ( for greatest strength ) and fewer tethers as you move away from center ( for lesser amounts of mass ). Liftport has plans to build a Lunar elevator from current material. Using that same material for an Earth based elevator would reach the lunar gravity center (about 9,000 km AGL) approx. 1/6 G. Add this new concept and you could reach Earth's surface. We can do this now. Let's get started. What do you think?
Well, that was positively terrifying and exciting all at once.
Exciting, challenging and frightening all at the same time.
+Ashton Roelfsema Not really. They uploaded this to 'TEDx Talks' as well almost two weeks ago.
Those are Jeopardy champions? That question (it's an answer, actually, according to the rules of the game) is subtle and complex? Uh, what is Baghdad? Duh.
This TED talk occurred more than three years ago, and just today I heard an interview with Howard on NPR, in which he claimed, basically, that in the intervening time AI has arrived. The interview included recordings of simultaneous translations, which were no doubt perfect, but the sentences were all in English/Chinese 101. Simpler, actually, than the sentences that are machine-parsed on this video. Indeed, if there is AI technology that has arrived which can parse the meanings of words and translate those meanings across languages, it is not being used by Google Translate. Its English/Urdu is useless, and even its English/Spanish is wholly inadequate for constructions beyond the mundane.
I believe that AI will either succeed or fail based on whether machines can become fluent in language beyond the parlor-trick level. It is my hypothesis that they will not be able to; that the meaning which language is able to convey to the human mind cannot be captured by an algorithm and conveyed to a machine. It is outside the realm of the possible, that is, for reasons far too numerous and intricate to canvas on a RUclips comment. But I will say one thing, given the exponential rate at which Deep Learning algorithms are adding to AI's database, it shouldn't take long to prove my hypothesis wrong. By next Friday, even.
I'm so confident that I will even offer a test, after the successful completion of which, I will admit my hypothesis to be wrong. I will do so the day that I can crack a joke in English to a machine, after which it turns around and gets the same laugh from random Spanish speakers, telling the same joke in Spanish, that I get from random Spanish speakers, telling the same joke in Spanish. I'll give you ten years. Good luck!
I'm excited for the future to come, I wonder how long will it take for the first machine to reach the point of self-awareness...
This is the Venus projects ideas.
Once automation takes ALL of our jobs, the buying power of man drops. And if it drops to much, there goes the monetary system with it.
We are amazingly smart as a specie.
Get rid of money and bartering. It only slows development. Its all just paperwork. Whats needed is intelligent management of the resources.
We are a brilliant people. And money holds half if not more back from becoming great individuals.
Design the machines serve us better. Cool, more time for us to learn about the things we want to learn about. Free education to the highest level.
Most of the world is held captive by the banking (debt) and monetary system (job,bills,health,education)
There is an alternative.
The Venus Project!!
I'm officially frightened.
It's terrifying indeed.
Finally we don't have to work anymore. So much free time !
I agree with you. But it's the transitional period I'm worried about.
Whatever do you mean? With friends like these our work has just begun.
+Chris Churchill So long as they're smarter than us we're safe. It's the janky A.I. that I'm worried about.
Nakor Z Yes but you must take into account the inevitable depreciation of value of technological advancements over time. With the current pace of advancement it seems unlikely that the middle class will be unable to purchase personal systems and tech. We will likely see an increased draw on welfare and public services but a wealthier government will be in a better place to support this. Maybe certain countries will suffer during restructuring but places like Canada that already have universal health care and reasonable strong public school systems should fair better.
The fact that even the poorest of us can buy a cell phone in one paycheck is evidence of less catastrophic change than some anticipate.
Where would the wealthier government come from? Companies don't pay any significant amount of taxes compared to the number of people they already jettison regularly.
5:27 lmao, sounds like someone got a bit ahead of themselves there.
The solutions to this I think are surprisingly old, American revolutionary Thomas Paine suggested something akin to the Citizens Dividend/Basic Income (as mentioned in the final slide).
Crucially though, as Capital and Labour are diminished by technology the one thing we will all still compete for voraciously is the very land we stand on, so the tax on land values (and indeed extended to other monopoly rents) that Henry George and others before and since proposed would also allow everyone to enjoy the benefits of the singularity as fairly and painlessly as possible.
He says it all so lightheartedly and with a smile on his face, but the message is shocking and frightening! And this talk has been more than 5 years ago... imagine where in the process we are now of AI taking over. Too much to process for me!
This can replace doctors, sure. But it can also train new doctors.
If it can understand what it's seeing, and it can understand language and talk, then it can teach medical knowledge to anyone who asks - even kids. Your 10 year old kid could be laying in bed with an interactive app on her phone, asking "why?" to a friendly talkative A.I. for hours and receiving patient and informative replies to her questions, learning the ins and outs of howto do double bypass heart surgery. Coz hey that's what she's curious about tonight, and there's nothing in her way to stifle her curiosity.
_'A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer'_ anyone?
That should lower the cost of med school a bit.
God im so waiting for this to happen...
I'm 21 and very excited about the future and the new things it brings.
Excited about the possibility of this being applied to teach. But no, I don't think this can replace doctors, at least for now. People are living systems, not standardized products, and therefore we are not exactly the same. What's written in the text books is not representative of all patients and there's no universal algorithm you can apply that will fit everyone. What makes a doctor a doctor is exactly the cognitive flexibility, the ability understand why something is not working the way it "should" and produce different hypotheses and solutions. Anyone can apply diagnosic criteria and guidelines. There's also the question of the human component, which is so important in medicine since the quality of the doctor-patient relationship alone influences the progression of the disease and adherence to treatment.
With that said, I think cooperation between humans and computers is extremely promising, just like the speaker made clear. I'm convinced this will be our future - human performance being enhanced by computers, rather than replaced.
Truly amazing work.
What's the difference between TED and TEDx talks?
Most people generally view the former as more credible than the latter. That's the extent of my knowledge on the subject.
As far as I understand, TEDx are independently-organised events all around the world, while TED is the one and only yearly conference organised by TED themselves.
TEDx Talks are organised independently from the TED organisation as far as I know. Also there are more TEDx Talks and they are also a lot cheaper to attend. I have been to TEDxVienna. The average ticket costed 75€. The prices of TED Talks can rise up to multiple thousand dollars.
Jakob Reumann
Yes. To add more info, it's ~8000$ (yes 8k) to attend TED. And you have to stay there for about a week and do what they want from you 15 hours/day, including sharing a hotel room with a random person. You can't leave for that one week. Eddie Huang talked about it in his interview for Joe Rogan.
I swear to god, I need this software.
deeplearning.net/tutorial/gettingstarted.html
Wow, "80% of the jobs in the developing world, computers just learned how to do" That is powerful!
The last two minutes of this talk to me is an invitation to embrase wu wei in our lives.
I'm surprised RUclips do not draw upon viewer input to fine-tune their subtitles.
People are afraid, but this is evolution. First we will evolve into cybernetic organisms. Humanity is not lost, but we will never be the same. Next step is we will evolve into pure energy.
Ha, that would suck. Unless we could inhabit bodies at will.
It will hopefully one day free the human race so we can focus on the Universe. Billions of us exploring the known universe and letting the machines taking care of the day to day.
+Crazyman1212 That assumes the machines wouldn't be vastly superior at exploration. Given how fragile humans are that seems unlikely.
Unlikely, because only the rich and powerful will be able to take advantage of this intelligence. The rest of us will be reduced to peasants because there are no jobs and no mercy from our wealthy rulers. It will be like feudalism all over again.
rob062388 The problem is that well implemented intelligence effectively generates infinite resources (from a human perspective at least), so it doesn't really matter how unfairly large the wealthy's slice of the pie is.
Also keep in mind that this scenario is fairly slow and kind of makes no sense.
You really should read Nick Bostrom's book Superintelligence. It's sort of the go to reference for theories regarding superintelligence, and is extremely comprehensive and well researched.
"The problem is that well implemented intelligence effectively generates infinite resources" - what if I want to own 100000 jumbo jets? Will the robots make them for me?
kapsi A technological singularity could easily make 100,000 jumbo jets for everybody, all it needs are the raw elements for its grey goo to assemble it from.
Great topic to cover so please keep coverage on this topic ⭐
if you're interested in AI and the potential threat they pose, you should listen to/ read superintelligence by nick bostrom
Those images of the human and the cat were the creepiest things I'd ever seen.
unsupervised clustering algorithm and bayes theorm
My humble view on this is that industrial revolution to a large degree freed humans (as well as animals) from manual labour, this revolution will free humans from intellectual labour, so we will be able to use our minds for other things - the next level of existence, I suppose.
AI be like:
join us to the dark side, we have digital cookies here!
This is actually terrifying.
The last step is inevitable: make a deep learning algorithm think about politics, ethics and law and we will have ourselves the most efective, efficient and fair system ever
politics, ethics, and law are not about being fair though; its about being more fair to the people in charge who make them. and that is why it will never be a reality. the people in power will remain in power no matter what. if it comes at the cost of you making major sacrifices, that is something they can live with.
Way to bury the lead, guy. Wait till the last second of your talk to drop a serious bombshell!
I have thought about this type of Automation when counting eggs, and female rotifurs in a microscope to estimate population. Takes a long time, and it is inconsistent.
Off to my nearest computer programmer i go!
he is being so honest, whereas most data scientists are not